President Obama is so invested in his campaign’s early voting strategy that he became the first sitting president to cast a ballot before election day. In case you missed the subtlety of the First Lady telling you to “vote early” on Jimmy Kimmel Live, the president has started doing his stump speech in front of a giant, fluorescent “Vote Early” sign. It’s basically his campaign motto.
And it’s not working. According to Gallup’s latest, Romney leads Obama among voters who have already cast their ballots:
Romney currently leads Obama 52% to 45% among voters who say they have already cast their ballots. However, that is comparable to Romney’s 51% to 46% lead among all likely voters in Gallup’s Oct. 22-28 tracking polling. At the same time, the race is tied at 49% among those who have not yet voted but still intend to vote early, suggesting these voters could cause the race to tighten. However, Romney leads 51% to 45% among the much larger group of voters who plan to vote on Election Day, Nov. 6.
The early voting race might tighten, but Romney still has a solid lead. Assuming Gallup’s 49%-49% split among early voters who haven’t cast a ballot yet, there would be no way for Obama to overtake Romney at this point.
Note that in 2008, Obama crushed John McCain in early voting, 58 percent to 40 percent:
The Obama campaign has some practice in this arena. With significantly more resources at its disposal than rival John McCain in 2008, it made banking early votes a top priority and deployed some smart campaign tactics to that end. Of those who cast early ballots in 2008, 58 percent favored Obama, according to an ABC News/Washington Post poll taken just before Election Day, versus McCain’s 40 percent.
The Gallup poll is national, and the Obama campaign will probably argue it’s the early voters in swing states that matter. But signs aren’t good for Obama in Ohio early voting, either, at least compared to his 2008 record. At Politico, Adrian Gray writes:
I have always been a believer in data telling me the full story. Truth is, nobody knows what will happen on Election Day. But here is what we do know: 220,000 fewer Democrats have voted early in Ohio compared with 2008. And 30,000 more Republicans have cast their ballots compared with four years ago. That is a 250,000-vote net increase for a state Obama won by 260,000 votes in 2008.
Could it be that Obama’s get-out-the-vote efforts aren’t as unbeatable as we’re told?
Nice try. You referenced an opinion piece from Politico. That wasn't fact-checked and part of their journalistic coverage.
Mr. Obama's campaign has become something like the television advertisements for devices most people don't need. I am thinking of the ads where an announcer tells you to call now and if you do, you'll get something else at some great price, but you have to call right away. The reason for that push is because these sellers know that if a person does not call as soon as he sees the ad, he won't call later. The moment has passed. And because the product is not something essential, there's no reason the viewer will even think to call later. n nNow we have Mr. Obama telling voters to vote early. Because if his voters, so to speak, take their time, they simply won't vote at all. Mr. Obama has to catch them while they're thinking of him and if not then, well, the voter will not come back to vote later. Of course, unlike the television ad where the product is a phone call and credit card number away, the voter has to go to a polling location. Nonetheless, Mr. Obama's would be voters are not so eager to buy what he's selling this time around. His election strategy bears that out. n
but wait . . .. Oh I can hardly wait until 11/6
Well, I hope all Obama's busses come up with flat tires on Election Day, but I also think that his strategy is a smart one._On election day you may have to stand a long time, something may be wrong with your ID or registration, you may get sick, your car may break down, it may rain (or a hurricane). But early voting has become so common that you won't even miss that thrill of being in on the action: Everyone else will be voting with you
I think that it’s funny that the Obama Campaign and the leftwing sites have been chirping about how Obama is crushing Romney in the early voting and then this comes out. This seems to be some good news, we cannot take the foot off the gas.
I think a bigger problem for Obama is that those who are voting early for him would have done it anyway
Obama supporters turn out to see Obama at rallies but they are less inclined to turn out for something so mundane as voting. So the Obamanistas take the cheering fans attending Obama rallies by the hand and transport them directly from the rallies to the nearest early voting booth. n nCute trick. And a strong argument against allowing early voting.
Who says they are turning out to see Obama. Usually there's some pop star (aging or otherwise) that comes on first and plays a few songs. That's the only reason people show up to an Obama rally!
I think Al Sharpton's head may explode.
Like a dirty bomb. We may have to evacuate New York.
AMERICA !!!.. Please vote Mitt Romney to return America back to Sovereignty. The USA is currently being referred to as the "colony of vagabonds" :- forget Obama, go Romney for sovereignty.
Vote Early — Before more info on Benghazi comes out!!! Obama-Biden 2012! /sarcasm
I have to say that I'm disappointed in Alexrod. I'm surprised he didn't think to "invite" UN observers into our living rooms to monitor us filling out absentee ballots.
Nice cherry picking of the Gallup Poll from this year and comparing it to a 2008 poll from a completely different organization to make an utterly useless point. Other polls are showing BO with a the same early vote advantage. "Of particular importance given the difficulty in getting base Democrats to the polls, Obama is winning 59-41 among those who have already voted (14 percent of sample), 54-42 among those who plan to vote early (18%), and 53-44 among those who plan to vote absentee (7%). Romney is winning those who expect to vote on Election Day 53-44 (62%)."
Yet the oddsmakers give Obama 2 to 1 odds of winning. Apparently people who put their money where their mouth is don't buy it.
You are assuming some wealthy fans of O are not "donating" over at Intrade, aren't you? Probably not a valid assumption…
Could be all kinds of theories, but its not just intrade – also Vegas, UK bookies, etc. – and these are all places that react pretty instantaneously to new information – so, right or wrong, they obviously think that the analysis and this article is pure unadulterated hogwash.
Or maybe they are about to get their clocks cleaned. How much of intrade, for example, is based on conventional wisdom? How many folks are going by the RCP average, which keeps the race looking close by including polls with laughable Democratic advantages and ludicrous margins of error? nAt any rate, I have a feeling we'll start to see the smart money shift as we get closer. nStock markets react instantaneously to new information, too, we are told, but that doesn't prevent pretty big bubbles that, when they burst, are pretty nasty.
Ok – we're all guessing.
Yeah, we're all guessing – but it's fun, isn't it? I've already voted and given what I can give, so it would make sense for me to tune everything out and wait for Tuesday – but then I wouldn't be reading Contentions with other political junkies! So back to guessing. nAnd I get what you and others are saying. But then you look at what the campaigns are doing – Clinton in MN (!), Obama buying a week's worth of ads in MI(!), Romney buying ads in PA. I don't know. The campaigns seem to think Romney's odds are pretty darn good, else everyone would be in NC and FL, and Obama would be buying ad time in Arizona. nClinton in MN? Wrap your head around that one.
If you exclude Gallup, the momentum seems to be shifting to Obama. The move towards Romney seems to have run out of steam, and I can't imagine there will be some quick way to kickstart that again. Obama already has an edge in the electoral college, and if Romney is stalling he can't overcome that. So my best guess right now is that this late shift to Obama will continue, that the oddsmakers are right, and that Obama will win.
Okay, here I go. We're invited to join a public conversation and to express our opinions on matters as honestly as we see them. Right? No offense then. I've watched a great deal of TV today(I usually watch very little). Obama is coming across as he didn't in three debates: calm, sincere and, yes, presidential. This will be picked up across the country. Where Romney has a lead, it is slight and can be reversed with very little change in the numbers. It's difficult to imagine, then, Obama's numbers not improving. Enough to win? I hate to say it, my friends, but yes. Please convince me I'm wrong.
It's hard for me to believe, ATT. It's not like Romney's lead amongst the undecideds is slim, or that the enthusiasm gap is unreal. One piece of data I have not seen referenced here is the RCP generic congressional avg, which has Republicans up .5%, so it seems the underlying current is moving in the right direction, too. nIf Americans are fickle enough to decide that a non-essential presidential performance over Sandy outweighs Benghazi, we deserve what we get. I don't think we're that far gone.
Excluding Gallup is excluding arguably the most reliable poll. NPR's, for example, was pretty heavily Democratic, which gets back to my main point. Has the momentum shifted, or are polls merely creating that impression? If the latter, the bookies odds and Intrade are also explained, as is Nate Silver's analysis. nAnd if the trend has shifted, why was Clinton in MN today, and why is the Obama campaign buying ad time in MI?
I don't know how the polls can just create an impression of shifting momentum. That's what the hard data says. Take Pew Research, and American Research Group. They both now say tie, when recently they had Romney ahead. Clinton might be in MN because it's a great place to pick up girls – I have no idea. Why was Romney in Ohio today if everything was in the bag?
What I like about that Pew poll is that Romney leads by 8 amongst Independents. I'll take it, and the headline indicates enthusiasm is benefitting Romney. nAs for Clinton – I'm just glad he's chasing skirts in MN and not OH. I'm sure the Obama campaign would prefer to unloose him upon the fairer sex in the latter. If Romney starts campaigning in NC and buying ads in TN, I'll buy the momentum shift argument. nPolls can create an impression – hard data doesn't have to be accurate.
This is a purely turnout driven election. Nobody knows how the turnout will break down between the parties. If you go by polling data the Democrats have the edge, but there is no way to know whether Democrats are simply more willing to talk to pollsters. With a 10% (or lower) response rate, a small systematic difference in response could skew the polls dramatically. A very small shift from expectations could produce a major surprise. Nearly everyone expects a squeaker. A Republican landslide would be a surprise, although there are a number of credible analysts who expect this result. A Democratic landslide would be a real shocker, because almost no one expects it.
But some guesses are better than others. There will be two huge loosers right there with Obama: Nate Silver (Mr. “There is a 75% chance that Obama will win” and Intrade.
I think gamblers are underestimating Romney somewhat for a few reasons.r nr nFirst, they are overestimating the possibility of a wrong way election (a la 2000) and also assuming Obama would absolutely win in that circumstance. r nr nSecond, they are overestimating the value of Ohio. The Ohio odds and election odds are identical, when they should not be. Romney has paths to win without Ohio, especially if he is ahead in the popular vote. Obama does not. r nr nThird, unlike sports, there are few dispassionate bettors. Gamblers are disproportionately Democrat, disproportionately young and (in many cases) from another country. Even if you think the race is a toss up, you are likely to bet your guy. r nr nFourth, Nate Silver. A lot of people who bet on this stuff follow him, and have for quite some time. Of course, Silver is a Democrat, which brings us back to #3.
Intrade is much more reactive than predictive. In September 2008 it had McCain with over a 50% changes. The other markets were the same.
Intrade includes traders who are foreign who don't understand the us political system. Moreover, it's not clear if Obama through surrogates are buying up contracts, as they clearly have been playing the "resistance is futile" campaign. n nI first followed intrade and readers can look this up, in 2009. Christie on Friday before the election was about 35 (where Romney is now) he zoomed to 50 the day before Election Day. Yet reading the same polls the public saw I saw this an easy 4 point race for Christie. The national polls are all very consistent if you hold the Dem-Rep-Ind constant. This race looks like Romney's up 4 to 6 assuming an even split of republicans and democrats…will,that happen, no one will know until election time. But I am willing to say that 08 was a fluke and we are returning to 04-10 levels and may in fact see a slight surgeon got voters lifting To +1 to +3 republican. Gallup is using plus 1. n nThe states are seeing more of these anomalies, half the pollsters are using plus 8 samples. Let me say this no chance the exits if you work out the math were really pus 4.8 democrat. Which was a reversal of the plus 5 republicans enjoyed in 2004. Rasmussen splits the difference in his latest which has Romney up two. I think ohio goes comfortably to Romney, n nThe last week of a campaign can be interesting…but I see 2012 as one of those years which the incumbent will lose. n n
Even Real Clear Politics shows Obama leading in the electoral map, and as of today their “no tossups” analysis gives Obama 290 electoral votes, which is very close to what Nate Silver finds (294.6). Silver and the Princeton Election Consortium, both of which are run by smart people (as opposed to, say, Rassmussen) have Obama’s odds of winning in excess of 70%, and Intrade has Obama at 63.5% (as julianbook pointed out).
The RCP polls are “no tie” results, where the undecideds simply are excluded. In reality, a lot of them will vote, and history suggests that they go for the challenger by a 2-1 margin (if not more).
Axelrod (may he never darken my television screen again after this interminable election) was blustering yesterday about the Obama campaign ignoring the polls, because they were so far ahead of Romney in the early vote. Simultaneously, Gallup was releasing the poll showing Romney beating them in early voting by 6 or 7 points. n nI'm sure the juxtaposition of the two news memes didn't bother Axelrod at all; he's an expert at dealing in unreality. Still, it was worth a chuckle.
This article isnt implying that Obama is a liar, is it? Its not like he has ever lied before.(sarcasm)
No pollster hits the bull's eye every time. However, Gallup's numbers are seldom outliers, particularly in tracking polls over a long stretch. Starting with their October 1-7 poll, Gallup has shown Obama ahead zero times, but they have shown, for 14 consecutive days until the storm interrupted operations, Romney 50%–52% and Obama 45%–47%. Nothing outside those ranges. Ed Goeas of the historically accurate Battleground Poll sees the race the same way, predicting 52%-47% Romney. n nI suspect that Gallup and Mr. Goeas are near the mark within Romney at +5. However, as long as they are respectably accurate—even if Romney wins the popular vote by only half that 5-point margin—he will win the electoral college easily. n nAnd unless a whole lot of people were lying to Gallup about whether and how they voted, the notion that getting your supporters to the polls early is the key to winning elections will be revealed to be pure chimera.
If >90% of the public is unwilling to talk to pollsters, can you have too much faith in anyone's numbers? You can't measure what you can't measure. The only poll that matters is tallied on election night.
This is an interesting point, because apparently the response rate is way, way down this year, so maybe pollsters haven't figured out how to account for it yet.
I can't believe with all the polling data & early voting statistics available you are only citing Gallup as a sole Source. Early voting is up for Obama especially in places like Noth Carolina. His ground team never left after the last election! Early voting is up for Romney compared to McCain who had no solid ground game in '08 as well. Gallup has not been a good indication of what truly is going on in swing states IMO. Maybe it is showing how the popular vote will end up but this election is not determined by pop vote. Obama still has a more than fair shot at getting 270+ in Electoral College even w/o winning the popular vote.
Now time for the splash of cold water. Vegas and Bookies do not set the odds based on who they think will win. The odds are set based on what will most likely get an even amount played on both sides. They collect off the juice and do not want bets heavily played on one side. You have no idea what you are talking about.
Watch Obama go and vote again on election day.. that would be awesome.
Ohio, Florida, PA, MI, Wisconsin, Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, and VA— Get out the vote for Mitt in these states!!
In Michigan here and I will be voting ROMNEY!!!!
Mitt Romney is a totally inu00b7conu00b7sisu00b7tent. He will say anything to get elected.
I wish I can share the optimism. But Obama is still polling ahead of Romney in OH, as of today. Polls are not moving much for a while and if this continues, Romney will lose. Half of the people still buy into his charm. Amazing!
This early voting really bothers me. Is it, "Vote early, vote often?" or people saying "I don't want all the data, my mind is made up and nothing will change it". Now for how many people will 09/11/2012 have real significance? Shouldn't the presidents actions until election day have an impact on how people vote? Or suppose Romney makes some real blunder which turns off a significant number of his supporters? Early voting should be strictly for those who have a legitimate "excuse" for not being able to get to the polls on ELECTION DAY.
I find it hilarious that just 1 month ago republicans were screaming like a baby with an ear infection about polls meaning absolutely nothing, about polls being completely wrong, about polls being in the tank for obama. When Gallup had Obama up +7 you all were SURE that they couldnt be trusted. Now that the poll shows what you want to see you're all SURE it's accurate. ____Whatever gets you through the next week i guess…
Glad to say I supported Romney in my early voting today!
You wish. And stop polling only rednecks.
But rednecks are the only ones who answer their phones – I mean if they are willing to put down their beer and stop hitting their wife and kids. But I assumed pollsters took that well known sociological fact into consideration already.
wow… so youre saying that krauthammer doesnt believe this will help obama? I cant believe a man with an objective a view point as krauthammer things that! im convinced!
This article explains exactly why I voted eight days ago, on the first day of early voting in Colorado: As much as it was an enthusiastic vote for Mitt Romney, I made sure I was in line first thing in the morning. I couldn't think of a better way of tossing a live grenade smack in the middle of yet another one of The One and Only Miserable Failure in Chief Who So Richly Deserves To Be Humiliated Out Of Office's horrendously failed "strategies."
Pew polling from 2 months ago indicated that Obama supporters were self admittedly 2x more likely to NOT vote than Romney supporters. Early voting is the sharp point of that spear. But, and this is the BIG question, whether Al Sharpton is right and 'millions' of black folk will flock to the polls THIS Sunday. If he's right then the early voting will tip to Obama. If he's wrong then it goes the other way.
Go Mitt Romney for president 2012!!! Go Mitt Romney 2012!! Go Mitt Romney for president 2012!!! Go Mitt Romney for 2012 president!! Mitt Romney- Believe in America! Mitt Romney= Happiness, education to the highest possible quality, BILLIONS of job opportunities,and an economy that is STRONGER than ever!!!! If you vote for Mitt Romney, you will NOT regret it. Vote for Mitt Romney 2012! Vote for Mitt Romney!
Really satisfied with your manner of writing in actual fact,r nsomething tells me you could possibly be a pro!r n? !